439 thoughts on “James Randi’s Million Dollar Challenge, Intelligent Designer’s Elusiveness”

1. phoodoo,

   Would you like to defend your faith?

2. phoodoo,

   Did any of this actually happen to anyone, phoodoo?

3. William J. Murray,

   The challenge is a blatant, self-serving fraud run by a huckster stage magician serving his own interests.

   How would you compare Kent Hovind’s $250,000 challenge to prove evolution to his satisfaction? It’s certainly easier to bend a spoon.

4. Allan Miller,

   Not only does this happen, but likewise many people who know him have suggested that he doesn’t even have the million dollars.

   And yes, I know people who have tried to reply to his challenge and gotten no answer after repeated attempts. He answered the first request, and then just stopped responding after that. And it costs a fair amount of money to even set-up the experiments.

5. phoodoo,

   Not only does this happen,

   No actual backup to the story, then?

   but likewise many people who know him have suggested that he doesn’t even have the million dollars.

   So?

   And yes, I know people who have tried to reply to his challenge and gotten no answer after repeated attempts. He answered the first request, and then just stopped responding after that.

   Hearsay.

6. A fellow biochemistry student at university started a cult – his followers all dressed in orange – and he tried to persuade me that he could levitate. “Go on, then”. “I can’t just do it. It would blow your mind; there’d have to be some preparation”. Sure it would. “Oh look, a bloke levitating”, I would think to myself.

7. William J. Murray: Tthe challenge is not set up to be an honest judge of anything. If it were, there would be an insistence on transparency, scientific protocols and a mutually-agreed panel of neutral judges.

   The protocols used are mutually agreed. How could they be otherwise given the varying nature of the powers claimed?

   William J. Murray: The challenge doesn’t ask for anyone to scientifically demonstrate a psi or supernatural capacity; the challenge is for them to demonstrate it in whatever manner Randi sees fit, as if Randi knows how best to test a commodity he claims doesn’t even exist!

   Again, incorrect. The demonstrations are mutually agreed. If you had spend any time doing actual research instead of spouting nonsense you’d know this.

   For example, many challenges are documented and quotes from the challengers on how it went are available.

   That there is evidence that disproves your claims won’t stop you making them will it?

   William J. Murray: The challenge is a blatant, self-serving fraud run by a huckster stage magician serving his own interests.

   Presumably that’s your excuse as to why you’ll never be able to demonstrate your mind powers in a mutually agreed controlled environment such as the one Randi offers to construct.

   Excuse != reason.

   William J. Murray: So, blind faith in your personal view, thus no reason to even look for the psi/supernatural research or to actually look into JREF, Randi and the challenge. Check.

   Yet here you are critising people for the very same thing you are doing. You keep saying “it’s a fraud” but I’m yet to see any actual evidence for that! Your personal opinion is insufficient to tarnish someone like Randi.

   If you had evidence for your claims of fraud you’d present it.

   William J. Murray: Psi and what has been commonly referred to as the supernatural has been scientifically studied at least since the time of William Crookes in the 1870’s. There has been ongoing scientific research into psi, and the “supernatural”, such as mediumship, ever since and is currently ongoing.

   Yes, that’s right. And the more they study it the less evidence of PSI is found. Or do you dispute that?

   In short William, your claims about Randi and his challenge fall short due to the lack of actual evidence for them.

   Unlike matters of the mind, where your claims can exist because they relate to matters that cannot easily be disproved, here the problem is clear. You call Randi and his challenge a fraud, over and over, but don’t seem to have any evidence for that.

   So here we could say that you have blind faith in your personal view, thus no reason to even look for the psi/supernatural research or to actually look into JREF, Randi and the challenge. Check.

8. Randi’s experimental set-ups are an excellent education in how to set up a valid experiment.

   I sometimes link to his video on the Australian dowsers for my students.

   And, as OMagain says, William, the protocols are agreed by both the challengers and Randi. In the Australian dowsers experiment, the dowsers were really happy with the protocols, and very confident that they could perform under those conditions. But they couldn’t. And they agreed they couldn’t. They were disappointed by the results, but accepted them.

   Some nonetheless thought they could find water, but agreed that they had failed to do so under the experimental conditions, at least above the level expected under the null.

   So sure, maybe psi is one of these things that you can’t demontrate using null-hypothesis testing. But then, that becomes a weird postulated property of psi that makes it “shy” and thus not amenable to scientific investigation, not a reason to accuse Randi of being a “huckster”.

   It could well be that there are realities in the world that can’t be demonstrated scientifically. Fine. My only beef is with people who make scientific claims that aren’t supported by good science.

   Incidentally, my brother-in-law is a dowser, and has some interesting ideas about what it is he picks up with his dowsing method. We are currently trying to arrive at a protocol to test his hypothesis. I’m open minded – I think he might be on to something, and he isn’t interested in any inference that can’t be scientifically demonstrated. So it should be interesting.

9. William J. Murray: There has been ongoing scientific research into psi, and the “supernatural”, such as mediumship, ever since and is currently ongoing.

   In the UK it is now, I believe, the law that upon engaging a medium for a reading they are required to inform you that this is “just for fun”.

   At Battersea Spiritualist Church, the new laws mean visiting medium Bill Rae is peppering his session of clairvoyance – for which there is only a voluntary collection – with disclaimers along the lines of “this is not science” and “this is just an experiment”.

   http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7354089.stm

   So it seems the research is in, and people need to be protected from those who would exploit them by the law no less.

10. Omagain:

    The law doesn’t determine what has been scientifically supported and what has not.

    EL:

    I didn’t say none of the applicants were “happy” with the protocols; I said that all of the applicants can either accept Randi’s protocols or go home. Of course any protocols that the applicant agrees to in order to take the test are “mutually agreed to”, that’s the nature of any signed contract. But that doesn’t mean the protocols are scientific or fair to the applicant. That’s the nature of con men and magicians – they set marks up to be fooled, even while the marks think everything is on the up and up.

    If someone with a vested interest was conducting non-scientific tests with no transparency and no impartial judging and asserting that psi/supernatural events commodities had been successfully demonstrated, what would that prove to you? Nothing, right? You’d want actual scientific research conducted with double and even triple-blind experiments by people qualified to conduct the tests and properly evaluate the results.

    It’s just bizarre to me that any adult, intelligent, rational person would even consider using a self-professed stage-magician’s antics, when he has a known, factual vested interest in the outcome (in fact, his whole identity and career depends on negative findings), who produces zero scientific research on the subject, as meaningful evidence of any sort.

    In any event, one can easily find this information on Randi and his challenge if they seek to find it, and one can easily find the actual scientific research into the “paranormal”.

11. William J. Murray: In any event, one can easily find this information on Randi and his challenge if they seek to find it, and one can easily find the actual scientific research into the “paranormal”.

    That’s your excuse for you not supporting your claims of fraud is it? That I could go find out myself?

    I’m not disputing there is scientific research into the “paranormal”. I’m pointing out that that research shows the “paranormal” does not exist.

    We’ve been round this loop before, you pull up a specific claim from one researcher that they have found evidence for PSI, I pull up another reference that destroys your reference as unscientific. You then stop responding as you know you are wrong.

    There, I’ve saved us the trouble of bothering. Now if you have some actual evidence, present it, otherwise know that your claims of fraud re: Randi simply highlight your own inability to support your own claims.

12. William J. Murray: If someone with a vested interest was conducting non-scientific tests with no transparency and no impartial judging and asserting that psi/supernatural events commodities had been successfully demonstrated, what would that prove to you? Nothing, right? You’d want actual scientific research conducted with double and even triple-blind experiments by people qualified to conduct the tests and properly evaluate the results.

    Please design for me an experimental protocol, that you would be happy with, along those lines whereby proof of PSI can be obtained?

    You won’t do it, because all you’ll end up doing is replicating what Randi already does. So you need to find an excuse for you not doing that. But you seem to be expert at finding such, so again we can just leave this here.

    You are unhappy with what exists but are unwilling to explain how it could be improved. Noted.

13. Elizabeth,

    Hi! Long time.

    As far as psi, science and personal experience, before I became an Evangelical I tried to develop telepathic ability. Two friends would look at a card and I’d try to figure out what it was. I would concentrate hard to try to visualize it. The experiment stopped after a few rounds because the two friends said they saw demons and they ran out of the house.

    After becoming an Evangelical, I was told the world of Psi invites demonic influence into people’s lives. It just seemed creepy to me. So I never pursued it more.

    Some governments have invested money into Psi in order to do espionage, but the programs discontinued for lack of reliability.

    I don’t classify ID as science and if there is Psi phenomenon, I don’t think it is amenable to science because the Psi phenomenon seems to me at the whim of spiritual agents outside of human control.

    I referred to one case of a man who had psi ability and then lost it. He was steeped into the occult and then converted to Christianity. He’s now a retired professor of mathematics from a prestigious military university.

    Creationist RA Herrmann’s ID theory — the last magic on steroids!

    I was associated with the occult from birth, but in 1946 when I was 12 years old, I suddenly became extremely interested in occult manifestations and simultaneously became, what is sometimes called, a “mental giant” – indeed, a child scientist. I delved into any aspect of the occult that had any meaning for a child of my age. For two or three months, I was a superior telepathist. I once telepathically identified more than forty-five cards out of fifty-two cards from an ordinary deck of playing cards. However, suddenly I lost this particular telepathic ability, I lost the “key” so to speak. Obviously, I was brokenhearted over this state of affairs and began a long search for the lost mechanisms so as to renew this telepathic ability. Moreover, I investigated other occult manifestations.

    The reason I don’t think psi and the paranormal and ID are amenable to traditional science is that the intelligent agencies that cause these phenomenon are generally unwilling to reveal themselves in direct experiment. For example, if the Intelligent Designer of the Universe and Life wanted to reveal Himself, He surely would have the power to do so in every experiment we might conduct that would invite Him to show himself. Some could argue He has chosen to not participate and directly reveal Himself, or others will argue He doesn’t exist. Obviously I’ve chosen the former as an explanation, but most here have chose the latter.

14. stcordova: The reason I don’t think psi and the paranormal and ID are amenable to traditional science is that the intelligent agencies that cause these phenomenon are generally unwilling to reveal themselves in direct experiment.

    By intelligent agencies that cause these phenomenon you mean ghosts or daemons?

    stcordova: For example, if the Intelligent Designer of the Universe and Life wanted to reveal Himself, He surely would have the power to do so in every experiment we might conduct that would invite Him to show himself.

    The odd thing is that if you read a certain holy book, the “Intelligent Designer” has no problem appearing directly to issue instructions, burn bushes, carve stone tablets etc. So it happened then, but these days where we have ubiquitous camera phones, cctv etc, not so much.

    Why?

15. OMagain said:

    We’ve been round this loop before, you pull up a specific claim from one researcher that they have found evidence for PSI, I pull up another reference that destroys your reference as unscientific. You then stop responding as you know you are wrong.

    Richard Wiseman, paranormal skeptic, Daily Mail, January 28, 2008, pp 28-29

    “I agree that by the standards of any other area of science that remote viewing is proven, but begs the question: do we need higher standards of evidence when we study the paranormal? I think we do. (…) if I said that a UFO had just landed, you’d probably want a lot more evidence. Because remote viewing is such an outlandish claim that will revolutionize [sic] the world, we need overwhelming evidence before we draw any conclusions. Right now we don’t have that evidence.”

    William Crooke’s Research into mediumship., published in the Quarterly Journal of Science. Crookes was widely regarded as the greatest scientist of his time; his validation of spiritual mediumship cause and uproar in the scientific community.

    A couple of his contemporaries said of his and other such research:

    SIR WILLIAM BARRETT, (1844-1925) – Professor of physics at the Royal College of Science in Dublin for 37 years, “I’m absolutely convinced of the fact that those who once lived on earth can and do communicate with us. It is hardly possible to convey to the inexperienced an adequate idea of the strength and cumulative force of the evidence (for the afterlife).”

    Dr. Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913) – Co-originator with Charles Darwin of the natural selection theory of evolution: ” My position is that the phenomena of communicating with those who crossed over – in their entirety do not require further confirmation. They are proved quite as well as facts are proved in other sciences.”

    NDE research, published in the Lancet. An excerpt:

    With lack of evidence for any other theories for NDE, the thus far assumed, but never proven, concept that consciousness and memories are localised in the brain should be discussed. How could a clear consciousness outside one’s body be experienced at the moment that the brain no longer functions during a period of clinical death with flat EEG?

    Also, in cardiac arrest the EEG usually becomes flat in most cases within about 10 s from onset of syncope.29,30 Furthermore, blind people have described veridical perception during out-of-body experiences at the time of this xperience.31 NDE pushes at the limits of medical ideas about the range of human consciousness and the mind-brain relation.

    Another theory holds that NDE might be a changing state of consciousness (transcendence), in which identity, cognition, and emotion function independently from the unconscious body, but retain the possibility of non-sensory perception. Research should be concentrated on the effort to explain scientifically the occurrence and content of NDE. Research should be focused on certain specific elements of NDE, such as out-of-body experiences and other verifiable aspects. Finally, the theory and background of transcendence should be included as a part of an explanatory framework for these experiences.

    Veritas Project, mediumship research conducted by the Universtity of Arizona, which produced publications such as:

    Beischel J, Schwartz GE. Anomalous information reception by research mediums demonstrated using a novel triple-blind protocol. EXPLORE: The Journal of Science & Healing. 2007;3(1):23-27.

    and

    Schwartz GER, Russek LGS, Nelson LA, Barentsen C. Accuracy and replicability of anomalous after-death communication across highly skilled mediums. Journal of the Society for Psychical Research. 2001;65(1):1-25.

    Schwartz GE (with Simon WL). The Afterlife Experiments: Breakthrough Scientific Evidence of Life After Death. New York: Pocket Books (division of Simon and Schuster); 2002.

    Abstracts of the 40th Parapsychology Foundation International Conference
    “The Study of Mediumship: Interdisciplinary Perspectives”
    http://www.pflyceum.org/264.html

    The Scole Experiment http://www.thescoleexperiment.com/

    The Windbridge Institute, which has ongoing mediumship research, with many publications including “ANOMALOUS INFORMATION RECEPTION BY RESEARCH MEDIUMS DEMONSTRATED USING A NOVEL TRIPLE-BLIND PROTOCOL.”

    Princeton Engineering Anomalies Research
    http://www.princeton.edu/~pear/experiments.html

    Excerpt for “Implications and Applications”

    PEAR’s contribution to this expansion of the scientific worldview has been its accumulation of huge bodies of consciousness-correlated empirical evidence that the subjective/objective dichotomy of Cartesian philosophy is no longer entirely viable.

    More comprehensive accommodation of these anomalies within a functional scientific framework will require the explicit inclusion of consciousness as an active agent in the establishment of physical reality, a generalization of the scientific paradigm demanding more courageous theoretical structures than are employed at present, guided by more extensive empirical data than are now available, acquired via more cooperative interdisciplinary collaborations than are currently practiced. It is our hope that by its proposition of a few possible conceptual models PEAR has established productive precedents for such representation of this formidable, but crucial, topical domain.

    Our ability to acquire, or to generate tangible, measureable information independent of distance or time challenges the foundation of any reductionistic brain-based model of consciousness that may be invoked. The lack of notable correlations in the data with standard learning curves or other recognizable cognitive patterns, combined with the repeatable and distinct gender-related differences, suggest that these abilities may stem from a more fundamental source than heretofore suspected. Certainly, there is little doubt that integration of these changes in our understanding of ourselves can lead to a substantially superior human ethic, wherein the long-estranged siblings of science and spirit, of analysis and aesthetics, of intellect and intuition, and of many other subjective and objective aspects of human experience can be productively reunited. “

    There are many publications that PEAR produced during their research, including:

    Physical Aspects of Psychic Phenomena (1988). Physics Bulletin, 39, pp. 235-236.

    Evidence for Consciousness-Related Anomalies in Random Physical Systems (1989). Foundations of Physics, 19, No. 12, pp.1499-1514.*

    Consciousness and Anomalous Physical Phenomena (1995). PEAR Technical Note 95004, May 1995 (32 pages).

    The abstract: “Several million experimental trials investigating the ability of human operators to affect the output of various random physical devices have demonstrated small but statistically significant shifts of the distribution means that correlate with operator intention, exhibit repeatable idiosyncratic individual variations, and display consistent patterns of gender dependence, series position development, and internal distribution structure. These effects also appear to be statistically independent of distance and time. In a complementary program of remote perception studies, experimental protocols and analytical scoring methods have been developed to demonstrate and quantify information acquired by individuals about distant geographical locations without the use of normal sensory channels. A wave-mechanical approach to modeling consciousness/environment interactions, based on a metaphorical application of quantum concepts and formalisms, has proven useful in predicting and interpreting the empirical findings and in guiding the development of more incisive experiments.”

    Literally hundreds of papers on “paranormal” subjects:
    http://www.scientificexploration.org/journal/articles.html

    Beischel responds to critics of her extensive mediumship studies:
    http://www.skeptiko.com/51-dr-julie-beischel-responds-to-critics-of-psychic-medium-research/

    More and ongoing research by the Windbridge Institute:
    http://www.windbridge.org/publications/

    http://deanradin.blogspot.com/2009/09/skeptic-agrees-that-remote-viewing-is.html

    In 1995, the US Congress asked two independent scientists to assess whether the $20 million that the government had spent on psychic research had produced anything of value. And the conclusions proved to be somewhat unexpected.

    Professor Jessica Utts, a statistician from the University of California, discovered that remote viewers were correct 34 per cent of the time, a figure way beyond what chance guessing would allow.

    She says: “Using the standards applied to any other area of science, you have to conclude that certain psychic phenomena, such as remote viewing, have been well established.

    “The results are not due to chance or flaws in the experiments.”

    From Dean Radin’s compendum on psi research here:
    http://www.deanradin.com/evidence/Parker2003.pdf

    It appears quite clear from the above review that irrespective what interpretation is given to specific research reports, the overall results of parapsychological experimentation are indicative of an anomalous process of information transfer, and they are not marginal and neither are they impossible to replicate. In the face of this, the critic who merely goes on asserting there is no evidence for psi is using a tactic reminiscent of Mohammed Saeed al-Sahaf, Iraq’s former information Minister, in blindly asserting there are no
    American troops in Baghdad.

    However, if those here are content to base their views on the state of paranormal evidence via One Million Dollar Challenges offered by non-scientists with vested interests: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

    16 years and no skeptic has taken up the challenge of rebutting the evidence.

16. I have a comment awaiting moderation, probably due to length.

17. William J. Murray:
    I have a comment awaiting moderation, probably due to length.

    Does it include specific evidence for your claims? Named challengers and why Randi unreasonably dismissed their claims?

    No? I Thought it would not.

18. @ WJM

    Just released your long comment. I imagine it stuck in moderation because it included more than the set limit of links.

    Up to you, but I, for one, don’t find more text more convincing.

19. William J. Murray: 16 years and no skeptic has taken up the challenge of rebutting the evidence.

    That’s a very strong claim. Which psi “evidence” is your strongest card? And I’d like to take up the challenge. I can’t offer a million dollars but I can offer something much more valuable; my integrity.

20. William J. Murray: 16 years and no skeptic has taken up the challenge of rebutting the evidence.

    Last time round I picked one of your items and demonstrated there were serious concerns not only with methodology but with the vested interests of the person carrying out that research.

    You ignored that counter evidence. And went away for a bit.

    So tell you what, please pick what you think is the strongest evidence from the comment you just posted and we can have an OP on it and discuss it in detail.

    If you have not done so in a reasonable time I will simply pick the first and proceed.

    Also, I would note, that you have failed to name or detail any specific instance where Randi acted as you claimed he acts – dishonestly.

    So next time you repeat that claim remember to note that, or I imagine you’ll be acting out of accord with your ‘objective morality’.

21. William J. Murray,

    However, if those here are content to base their views on the state of paranormal evidence via One Million Dollar Challenges offered by non-scientists with vested interests: http://www.victorzammit.com/skeptics/challenge.html

    16 years and no skeptic has taken up the challenge of rebutting the evidence.

    Aah, the usual verbose post with lots of links to woo woo websites and anecdotal stories but no actual scientific evidence. Of course topped off with the usual demand that science prove a negative.

    When will the woo pushers ever understand that the burden of proof is on them to provide positive evidence of their paranormal claims?

22. William J. Murray: 16 years and no skeptic has taken up the challenge of rebutting the evidence.

    You mean, apart from the last time we had this conversation and I destroyed your claims?

    Yeah, whatever.

23. OMagain:
    So tell you what, please pick what you think is the strongest evidence from the comment you just posted and we can have an OP on it and discuss it in detail.

    I’m surprised WJM didn’t latch on to Joe G’s “ghost in the hall” picture recently posted at UD. After all, that has much credibility as any of the other woo “evidence” WJM is pushing here.

24. By intelligent agencies that cause these phenomenon you mean ghosts or daemons?

    I suspect so.

25. How come Mindpowers Murray hasn’t taken the million yet? Given his claims it would seem trivial. He could then buy some new pants.

26. stcordova: I suspect so.

    Oh dear. I can ever really get used to it – folks who can understand sophisticated things who still subscribe to this.

27. William J. Murray: But that doesn’t mean the protocols are scientific or fair to the applicant.

    Flesh this bit out, William. Unfair how? Does he use cameras to induce a PSI limiting field? Does he stop them using misdirection, that pseudo PSI power?

    You have (again) failed the basic sniff test others have suggested, if any of this were true society would actually be different.

28. Omagain,

    I provided a link that details the inherently fraudulent nature of the challenge in my first post in this thread.

    Michael Prescott’s 4-part comprehensive look at what is wrong with the challenge (and it’s fraudulent nature) by examining the actual wording of the challenge starting here; http://michaelprescott.typepad.com/michael_prescotts_blog/2006/12/the_challenge.html – was the source material for that link and provides more detail.

    This site details the refusal of Randi to act in good faith on a Homeopathy challenge:
    http://www.psicounsel.com/marius/challenge.html

    Scientific research showing homeopathy effective: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1837216/?page=1

    Nobel prize winner Brain Josephson reports on the fraudulent tactics used to test Natasha Demkina, a girl that could supposedly diagnose illness/disease simply by looking at a person, here: http://www.tcm.phy.cam.ac.uk/~bdj10/propaganda/

    The agreed protocol:

    If Natasha correctly matches fewer than 5 target medical conditions, then the Test Proctor will declare that results are more consistent with chance guessing and does not support any belief in her claimed abilities.

    Well, that protocol certainly doesn’t represent a statistical or scientific line between what would be a significant success.

    The test involved her being given a set of seven cards, with a medical condition indicated on each. Medical subjects with these seven conditions (one of which was ‘no condition’), each bearing an identifying number, stood in a row and Natasha had to mark each card with the number of the person whom she thought had the condition indicated on the card. Despite the difficulties associated with the rigorous and unfamiliar conditions imposed by the experimenters, she identified four of the seven correctly. A fairly straightforward calculation shows that the odds of getting 4 hits or more out of 7 by chance are more than 50 to 1 against. Surely a case for celebrating Natasha’s success?

    As Josephson said:

    The fact that “everyone [had] agreed to the written protocols” (including the above italicised condition) is given as sufficient justification for asserting “[the] test, as preliminary as it was, will likely close the chapter in this case”. I think not: real science does not work on a basis of getting someone to sign their agreement to a long list of conditions, then later coming back saying “this is what you signed; the challenge goes to us!”.

    Just because protocols are agreed to doesn’t mean that failure to meet the agreed standard actually represents a failure to demonstrate psi or other paranormal events in a statistically or scientifically significant way.

    However, I’m perfectly happy to allow self-described “skeptics” continue to peddle the antics of a stage magician with a deep personal and financial interest at stake as significant “evidence” that there is no such thing as psi or other paranormal occurrences/activities.

    I’ll just keep pointing at the scientific research that says otherwise. The irony is quite enjoyable.

29. Homeopathy needs to demonstrate its effectiveness in standard medical trials before Randi or any of us need even to think about it.

    Every person who has claimed psychic powers in the past has bee deluded or a fraud. It is reasonable to be hyperskeptical of claims that have absolutely no history of standing up to scrutiny.

    Don’t like Randi, make some Youtube videos and get someone else interested. work your way up the ladder.

    Do you have the bare minimum of intellect to understand that Randi is not the sole gatekeeper?

30. petrushka: Do you have the bare minimum of intellect to understand that Randi is not the sole gatekeeper?

    William makes his own reality, so perhaps for him he is.

31. Petrushka said:

    Homeopathy needs to demonstrate its effectiveness in standard medical trials before Randi or any of us need even to think about it.

    Uh, no. Randi is in the business of disproving claims that certainly have not been demonstrated in any medical trails. He has stated before that homeopathy was all BS and con artistry, and obviously acted in bad faith in the lined incident.

    Every person who has claimed psychic powers in the past has bee deluded or a fraud.

    Can you support this assertion?

    It is reasonable to be hyperskeptical of claims that have absolutely no history of standing up to scrutiny.

    It’s not reasonable to be hyperskeptical of anything. What is reasonable is considered, neutral skepticism. In any event, many paranormal claims have certainly stood up to scrutiny, as the research indicates.

    Do you have the bare minimum of intellect to understand that Randi is not the sole gatekeeper?

    Randi isn’t a gatekeeper of anything but his own publicity and self-serving financial interests, and – as the evidence shows – he is willing to lie (like he did on two occasions concerning Sheldrake’s dog experiments), obfuscate, avoid, dissemble, and misrepresent in order to protect his livelihood.

32. Oh dear. I can ever really get used to it – folks who can understand sophisticated things who still subscribe to this.

    Thanks for the backhanded compliment. I saw a ghost while in Catholic church once not really trying to have a vision. I wasn’t on drugs, wasn’t in a dream state and have no history of Charles Bonnet syndrome (which does induce realistic-looking visions due to a physiological issue).

    Beyond that:
    http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/01/27/family-possessed-seeks-exorcism/4939953/

    Austin, a 36-year veteran of the Gary Police Department, said he initially thought Indianapolis resident Latoya Ammons and her family concocted an elaborate tale of demon possessions and supernatural occurrences as a way to make money. But after several visits to their home and interviews with witnesses, Austin said simply, “I am a believer.”

    Not everyone involved with the family was inclined to believe its incredible story.

    But, whatever the cause of the creepy occurrences that befell the family — whether they were seized by a systematic delusion or demonic possession — it led to one of the most unusual cases ever handled by the Department of Child Services. Many of the events are detailed in nearly 800 pages of official records obtained by The Indianapolis Star and recounted in more than a dozen interviews with police, DCS personnel, psychologists, family

    If so, this lends credibility to the claims of demonic activity in Jesus time.

33. William J. Murray: But that doesn’t mean the protocols are scientific or fair to the applicant.

    No, it doesn’t, although the applicants would be very foolish to accept them if they thought they were unfair.

    But all the ones I’ve seen seem exemplary. Can you give me an example of one that wasn’t?

34. Don’t like Randi, make some Youtube videos and get someone else interested. work your way up the ladder.

    Even 0.5 % above long term expectation in the casinos would be enough to clean them out. Using mathematical methods I had around a 1% to 1.5% advantage over the casino and that was enough for them to show me the door once they determined I was skilled (probably using video tapes and computer evaluations).

    Something similar could be done in a variety of other markets. Would psychic powers count as insider trading of financial securities? How about national espionage?

    As I said, though I accept the paranormal, I don’t think it can be controlled like engineers control matter acting under the laws of physics. The source of the phenomenon must be from a spiritual intelligent agency that chooses to be elusive to formal testing. Otherwise, it is as Randi says, non-existent.

    I think Randi is right most of the time to say it is non-existent or charlatanry. It’s great he has the bet going. But I don’t think he is ALWAYS right.

35. stcordova: The source of the phenomenon must be from a spiritual intelligent agency that chooses to be elusive to formal testing.

    Ah, much like how you can only calculate CSI if the audience is a sympathetic one?

    How convenient.

36. stcordova: But I don’t think he is ALWAYS right.

    Then you must have an example of when he was wrong, otherwise you would think he was always right.

    Do you have such an example? Or do you agree with Williams example(s)? If so, which one?

37. stcordova,

    Almost *any* exploitable supernatural trait would have a massive impact on society. Thank goodness they’re suppressing psi powers with chemtrails.

38. stcordova: But after several visits to their home and interviews with witnesses, Austin said simply, “I am a believer.”

    Uri Geller had some close (they thought) friends whom he convinced he really had psychic powers. When they found out he was in fact lying to them they were dissapoint.

    That people are convinced is not the point. People can perform amazing tricks.
    
    Can you explain that? No? He must be doing it via PSI!

    I have often been asked, “Do you deny the existence of ESP and other paranormal occurrences?” The answer is that I doubt their existence simply because I have never have evidence presented to me that would prove their existence. I cannot choose to believe something because I want to. Give me some hard proof, and I will change my mind; until then, I am burdened with Reality. I cannot, of course, deny that such things might exist. It would be illogical to do so.

    James Randi: ‘The Truth about URI GELLER’ page 19.

    Except of course William J Murray knows better, he can see into James Randi’s heart of hearts and knows that he is a fraud out at all costs to prevent the truth about PSI getting out.

39. OMagain: Except of course William J Murray knows better, he can see into James Randi’s heart of hearts and knows that he is a fraud out at all costs to prevent the truth about PSI getting out.

    Randi is not the gatekeeper. Anyone who has some power that should pass Randi’s test could make a zillion dollars without ever crossing Randi’s path.

40. Sal:

    The source of the phenomenon must be from a spiritual intelligent agency that chooses to be elusive to formal testing. Otherwise, it is as Randi says, non-existent.

    In your opinion, which is more likely, and why?

41. OMagain:

    Except of course William J Murray knows better, he can see into James Randi’s heart of hearts and knows that he is a fraud out at all costs to prevent the truth about PSI getting out.

    Yes, and it’s the same William J. Murray who wrote this:

    As far as I know, I’ve never told anyone what they really think.

42. keiths:

    Even more oddly, he designs in a way that mimics unguided evolution.

    So?

43. Mung: So?

    So it means that the designer probably does not exist at all, and you’ve made a terrible mistake and wasted many, many hours.

44. Mung: So?

    And furthermore, if the designer designs in a way that mimics unguided evolution it means what when ID says that “major forms” are products of design, not evolution, then somebody has to be wrong. If they are products of design then why can’t any ID supporter name one?

    If ID says that “major forms” are outside of the reach of evolution AND the designer designs in a way that mimics unguided evolution then the designer cannot design in a way that mimics unguided evolution.

    Anyway, the proof that ID is unable to define with specificity what a “major form” actually is is plain for all to see.

    What is a “major form”?

    You’ve even commented on that thread. If you knew what a “major form” was I assume you’d have noted it there.

    So you want it both ways. You want to claim that it’s a prediction of ID that “major forms” are only possible via ID but don’t actually seem to want to name any specific examples of a “major form”.

    And back to your “so” then. If the designer designs in a way that mimics unguided evolution then what is “the designer” adding? Take it away, nothing changes. Add it, nothing changes. Occams razor suggests it’s time for “the designer” to go.

45. stcordova’s gamble doesn’t work because of the incompatibility of the god he’s betting on and the process he’s using to “choose” that god. Granted, I haven’t read the Bible, but from what I remember and have heard/read being around people who have read it, belief rooted in a gambler’s position is not belief at all wrt the Christian god and it certainly doesn’t get you into the Christian version of heaven.

46. William J. Murray: Granted, I haven’t read the Bible,

    One wonders why you would visit a faith healer to cure your wife, having never read the bible. Don’t you have to have faith for faith healers to “work”?

47. In any case, William, will you be picking an item from your list of proofs of PSI as the strongest or shall I pick one for us to examine in detail?

48. Mung:
    keiths:

    So?

    So you can’t infer a designer from biology.

49. One wonders why you would visit a faith healer to cure your wife, having never read the bible. Don’t you have to have faith for faith healers to “work”?

    Seeing as I wasn’t the one with cancer nor was I the faith healer, I don’t think my faith was at issue. However, it hasn’t been my experience that faith matters all that much – what matters is just not getting in the way and actively trying to prevent things from occurring – IOW, being open to it.

50. OMagain said:

    In any case, William, will you be picking an item from your list of proofs of PSI as the strongest or shall I pick one for us to examine in detail?

    There’s a million dollars waiting for you from victorzammit.com if you can rebut the best evidence. Since it seems that meeting million dollar challenges is the litmus test here, have at it. I await news of your million dollar triumph.